You’ve made multiple comments using cliched Republican or even far-right talking points. You earlier responded favorably to a racist troll while talking about how you’re a liberal.

Message discipline. The naked realpolitik reality is every second spent on one thing is a second taken from another thing. If you know this issue isn’t moving the needle, or has hit diminishing returns (it’s probably the latter here), then time spent on it has an opportunity cost. That’s particularly true for the 2020…

Dismiss the racist troll “Max Contrarian” and his far-right bullshit.

GOP base, I’m fairly certain. “Women are attacking men with false accusations” is an old hit from Fox to the sewers of the neo-Nazi forums. I can’t count how many Republican women I’ve seen say it. It’s one of those lines that has been repeated so long it’s second nature for those in the bubble to listen.

But would Democrats making an issue make them matter? The past examples don’t really give me a lot of confidence there. If Congressional Democrats and candidates hammer more on “Trump is a sexual predator” stuff will it move the needle in any appreciable way? We know there won’t be legal consequences, and I’m not…

Morally fucked up, but politically they’re probably right. The issue gets no traction, Trump voters don’t care and anti-Trump voters already know. So I’m torn here. On one hand this is awful because it does minimize the issue and the victims. On the other hand...is there any utility to spending political capital on…

You chose it because you’re a cliched far-right troll. Even you aren’t dumb enough to think that’s insightful critique are you? There are tens of thousands of your ideological kin using the same 14 year old “I’m so smart” usernames.

Note, when the spineless far-right sack of shit is incapable of making any substantive rebuttal it will often post a response like this. No doubt most of you have seen it before. It postures, pretending it’s simply too good to respond and that by insulting the spineless cunt you’ve breached the boundaries of…

*Fragile state. The former “Failed States index” changed their name precisely because of bigoted asshats like you misusing the terminology.

Fucking sockpuppets. Hey Splinter staff, please clean house. I’m begging you. We all deserve better here. I’ll click your articles a dozen times each to make up for these useless trolls. 

You are incredibly stupid, or incredibly dishonest. NAFTA did no such thing, and even a basic understanding of the issue would inform you of that. So you’re clearly a bad faith troll. That settles that question.

Ban this sick troll. 

That presumes Mexico counts as a safe third country, which is an assessment that fails even basic scrutiny. If you’re going to pop in and spew misinformation, at least pretend you’ve done the bare minimum to back up your bullshit.

The motivation for the dangerous risk was 100% because the lawless racists in the Trump administration and their willing authoritarian footsoldiers in the worst departments of the federal government have made it impossible to legally claim asylum, despite what US law says.

International law too, for what it’s worth. On that particular issue US law and international law are aligned. 

Imagine if we took every dollar Trump and his stable of corrupt buffoons has enriched themselves with and used it to fund immigration courts that could adjudicate asylum claims fairly and make it so people aren’t forced into lethal ways around intentionally abusive US policy.

I don’t know all the nuances of federal procurement law, but I’m not sure they could just arbitrarily refuse a contract, particularly a competitive one, on those grounds. But I don’t know. There’s always been issues of corruption in that process so I may be naive here. 

Very true. Donating the profits and sending everyone back to work is the path of least mess at this point. Smartly done. 

This is smart. This is getting enough press to make the executive suite take notice. In reality I doubt it’ll make a dent in the systemic rights abuses being carried out in these abusive camps but any press that shines a glare on the issue is good right now.

Innocent people are rarely harmed by the outcome of a game of rugby, and certainly not anywhere near on the level of a paid liar for a would-be authoritarian that has repeatedly sought to violate basic human rights and then lie about it to the press to avoid scrutiny. Framing it that way shows a startling naivete.